Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 6

January 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2011

Reptilian humanoid

Reptilian humanoid → List of reptilian humanoids (links to redirect • history • stats)

Reptilian humanoid is an alternate term for reptilians. Should be retargeted to reptilians and List of reptilian humanoids should be moved to List of reptilians. Marcus Qwertyus 18:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilian humanoid is not an alternate term for reptilians. Reptilians are a specific type of reptilian humanoid from conspiracy theories and alien abduction accounts. Reptilian humanoids cover a much wider range, with examples in fiction, mythology and cryptozoology. Listing them as reptilians is not only wrong but implies that the conspiracists, who often say that gods and monsters from mythology of reptilian humanoid appearance are in fact reptilians, are right. Serendi ^podous 00:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell?? "reptilian" is an adjective refering to being like a reptile, it could also refer to reptiles. What's all this UFO stuff? list of reptilians -- is this the Fringe UFO Wikipedia or something? In the evolutionary history of animals, there have been reptilian mammals and reptilian birds. If you don't believe in evolution, there still have been these things as fossils, so in the biological history of the world then. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilians is a plural noun, not an adjective. You're thinking of "reptilian". Serendi ^podous 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a human-like reptile and asserting that it is a reptilian humanoid is original research without a source. Please be civil. Marcus Qwertyus 04:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to find many reliable sources on this topic. The easiest thing to to is to google reptilians. You'll see that every single mention of reptilians is UFO or conspiracy related. You can argue that "reptilian humanoids" is not the right generic term for all humanoid beings of reptilian appearance but you cannot argue that reptilians is the right one. Serendi ^podous 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forefront Endpoint Protection

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Snow retarget. Mhiji 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forefront Endpoint Protection → Microsoft Security Essentials (links to redirect • history • stats)

Microsoft Security Essentials and Microsoft Endpoint Protection are two completely distinct products. Redirecting one to another is an act of deception which results in ultimately misinforming reader. Fleet Command (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Microsoft Forefront. Mhiji 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Yes, that is an acceptable course of action. Fleet Command (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Twentyteens

Twentyteens → 2010s (links to redirect • history • stats)
Twenty teens → 2010s (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible redirects; how does "ten" translate to "teen" (as in "teenager")? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because teen (as in teenagers are aged 13, 14, 15 etc) is a suffix derived from "ten"? and goes back to OE etc according to my reading of the Concise Oxford Dictionary. So 13 can be seen as a slurring of three-ten (in the German language 18 is achtzehn literally eight-ten, whereas the French have it back to front dix-huit). the phrase seems to be in use though not popular. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading the Concise OED correctly; the OED confirms it with more details. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 1910s were the nineteen tens, not the nineteen teens. The 1810s were the eighteen tens, not the eighteen teens. The 2010s are the twenty tens or the two thousand tens. I would strongly discourage redirects from "twenty tens" or "two thousand tens" to 2010s, but at least those make sense. Twentyteens does not even make sense, except if it meant 2013-2019. Ten-, eleven-, and twelve-year-olds are not teenagers, so 2010, 2011, and 2012 can't be part of the twentyteens. All this is aside from the fact that anyone looking for a year or decade would look for it in digits, not words. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, but don't expect everybody else to be. Pageuse statistics indicate people are making htis mistake.--Patton123 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although one of these was in 2010s#Names at one point, it was one editor's opinion, unsupported by reliable, or even unreliable, sources in the real world. It's not actually used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in use eg at the bottom of this columnist piece at ft.com GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page use statistics cited in my comment below indicate thse redirects are use.

Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. Mhiji 16:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that link is relevant to the discussion at all.--Patton123 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A plausible mistake, pageuse statistics (1, 2) indicate these two were redirects were used 29 and 43 times respectively in December. That means people are typing this in looking for the currect target page, which means they are useful. How anybody could justify deleting them in such circumstances is beyond me.--Patton123 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religion in Detroit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. Mhiji 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religion in Detroit → Religion in Detroit (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete as a worthless cross-namespace redirect. The article was created in 2006 at this title and only today was moved to its present title. Nobody's going to search our template mainspace while expecting to get an article, so the age of this redirect isn't a problem. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Japanese Philosophy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Snow retarget. Mhiji 03:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Philosophy → Eastern philosophy (links to redirect • history • stats)

~~Delete~~. As there is already a Japanese philosophy article, a redirect to Eastern philosophy makes no sense. ~~As well, to change the redirect target to Japanese philosophy seems unnecessary considering how the wiki software tends to ignore capitals.~~~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Slightly different capitalisation is a great reason to have redirects. Deleting, rather than changing the target to "Japanese philosophy", would not help the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Nyttend.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Nyttend. Is it alright if I go ahead and retarget it, or should I wait for consensus?~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.